A string of fatal prisoner interrogations has raised concerns within the military intelligence community about whether the U.S. has strayed too far from a classic “mental chess match” interrogation strategy in favor an overbearing tag-team approach that can veer out of control.

Details surrounding interrogations in Iraq and Afghanistan could remain murky for years, but this much is known: Many of the brutal tactics, documents show, arose during an effort to pack multiple interrogators and other personnel – sometimes representing multiple agencies – into the interview room.

To many veterans of intelligence gathering, this represents a drastic and troubling departure driven by the highly improvised post-Sept. 11, 2001, war efforts.

“This goes absolutely contrary to what we’ve learned,” said Torin S. Nelson, a veteran Army interrogator who was rehired as a civilian contractor during the current Iraq war. “Now they’re using these chains of interrogators going in one after another to break the prisoner. This is contrary to breaking through to the prisoner” psychologically.

Concerns over harsh interrogation strategies have prompted leaders in the House to call a closed hearing next week to explore the issue. And Senate leaders are preparing for a series of hearings on prisoner abuses.

The military’s traditional approach to formal interrogations – separate from those on the battlefield – has been to develop one-on-one rapports with prisoners aimed at methodically coaxing secrets. The Army’s standard interrogation manual focuses on “the interrogator” and offers psychological techniques to win cooperation of the “source.” While fear and trickery are acceptable, there are limits, including prohibitions against coercion or physical torment.

Nelson and other intelligence veterans are concerned that unleashing large numbers of people on “the source” – an unofficial practice that has developed during the war on terror – has undermined a proven art form used for decades to win valuable intelligence in war efforts. And when you combine various agencies, such as the CIA and military intelligence officers, without proper oversight, it can lead to disaster, they say.

“That’s why it’s dangerous,” said U.S. Rep. Silvestre Reyes, a Texas Democrat on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. “These guys can get out of control. When one guys starts smacking on the prisoner, another guy is tempted to do the same. They feed off of one another.”

“I think interrogation approaches are going backwards,” said Mike Ritz, another former Army interrogator. “All these agencies represented together in the room shows desperation. The focus gets lost.”

At least three prisoner-interrogation deaths, broadly outlined in documents obtained by The Denver Post, show how questioning of prisoners by large numbers of personnel from different agencies has turned fatal:

The Nov. 26 suffocation death of Iraqi Maj. Gen. Abed Hamed Mowhoush, allegedly by two Fort Carson interrogators at a Qaim detention camp. The two chief warrant officers participated in a two-week interview that also involved CIA agents and Special Forces soldiers beating Mowhoush, according to records.

The Jan. 9 asphyxiation death of Iraqi Lt. Col. Abdul Jaleel, whose hands were tied to the top of his cell door while he was gagged at Forward Operating Base Rifles in Al Asad, documents show. He had refused to cooperate with interrogators, and there is an investigation of misconduct by unnamed military and CIA personnel.

The Nov. 4 death of an Abu Ghraib prisoner during an interview by Navy SEAL and CIA personnel, according to records.

The cases, all of which are under internal investigation, occurred after the prisoners were transferred to the custody of detention officials for formal interrogations far from the heat of the battlefield, where soldiers sometimes launch into immediate questioning of captives to save lives.

The interrogation deaths reflect several “doctrinal changes,” according to sources and experts. One is the more common use of multiple participants. Secondly, the Army and CIA are more frequently combining people during interviews.

“To find the CIA guys running around the battle zone is pretty unprecedented,” one Pentagon source said. “More commonly, we’re finding CIA, who are used to working unsupervised, helping military intelligence people. This has led to a tag-team approach that has undermined the traditional standards of discipline when it comes to interrogation.”

The source said the intersection of the CIA and military intelligence creates a murky oversight process that frees up “cowboys” to push the envelope on harsher techniques. For example, while hooding is common to transport and disorient prisoners, the alleged use of a sleeping bag to cover Mowhoush with only his feet exposed reaches a dangerous extreme, the source said. Mowhoush died of asphyxiation and injuries to his chest, according to an autopsy report.

A Pentagon spokesman declined to comment for this story, saying the oversight process for interrogations is among the prisoner-handling issues under internal investigation. CIA officials also declined to comment.

Julie Almacy, spokeswoman for Rep. Porter Goss, the Florida Republican who chairs the House intelligence committee, said interrogation techniques will be addressed during a closed hearing Wednesday. The specific topics and witnesses are not being disclosed; however, committee members eventually might offer a report or recommendations as a result of the inquiry, Almacy said.

Legislators will announce after the hearing whether they will issue a report or recommendations, she said.

Among the issues that must be addressed, according to Nelson, is whether the aggressive quest by top Pentagon officials to extract information from prisoners has led to “uninformed” decisions on formatting interrogations.

“Many of the decisions on interrogations are being made by leaders who do not understand the nuances of interrogations,” Nelson said. “Field-grade commanders and above are making the decisions, but they haven’t done the homework themselves to justify these decisions.”

A prisoner who faces large numbers of interrogators and a changing cast of characters can become too scared to talk, Nelson said. “It’s the natural inclination for a prisoner to want to talk with someone. If you’ve got six or seven guys in the room, it’s intimidating.”

And if agencies aren’t adequately comparing notes, the approach could alienate the prisoner – or allow a clever prisoner to play one against the other, he said.

Widespread abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison also have raised questions about whether there was an orchestrated effort between interrogators and military police to “soften up” prisoners with physical abuse and sexual humiliation for intelligence gathering and whether decisions came from top levels of the military and administration.

The shift in interrogation strategies is partly evident at Abu Ghraib, as well as at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, Nelson said, where interviewers were divided into “Tiger Teams” assigned to question various categories of prisoners. Detainees who were deemed uncooperative could be shifted to other teams who could apply different tactics to the prisoner, said Nelson, who interrogated about a dozen prisoners at Abu Ghraib and served as a witness for the military’s initial investigation into abuses there.

He primarily interrogated prisoners by himself, using only an analyst and an interpreter to facilitate his own line of questioning, he said. “But there were others who worked in groups,” said Nelson, who declined to discuss what he knew of abuses at the prison, citing internal investigations.

Nelson cited one interrogation he conducted as an example of how a methodical one- on-one format can elicit cooperation and valuable information. The prisoner, who had been at the prison for several months, had a fondness for American society, and despite his initial nervousness, Nelson said, became cooperative after several in- depth, polite conversations and a harmonious rapport based on trust. They talked about American culture. They talked about the prisoner’s favorite drink, Chivas Regal, a blended old Scotch whisky Nelson tried to obtain for him.

Nelson approached the interview in a way that the prisoner felt “protected,” he said.

“If I had mistrusted or mistreated him, it would have blown the whole rapport. This was about building common ground. He volunteered to be recruited to our side to work as a source within the Iraqi infrastructure.”

According to Ritz, the other former Army interrogator who now teaches interrogation tactics at his own private company, the human bond created during interrogations should be the aim because, ultimately, it helps “win the hearts and minds of the enemy.”

Ritz called classic interrogations essentially a humane pursuit. Once you dehumanize the process, he said, intelligence operatives walk on fragile ground that threatens the mission.

Peter Singer, a national security fellow at the Brookings Institution, said the rules of interrogation, whether by one person or a half dozen, obviously have been blurred given recent news accounts. Top government officials have said that previously banned tactics can be used, and people on the ground have taken it too far.

“You have problems of clarity, roles and regulations and accountability,” he said. “Is it the system or individual? It’s a little of both. The regulations do not allow you to beat someone to death with a flashlight, but they create a realm where anything is possible.”

The Larimer County coroner on Sunday performed an autopsy on the body found on a farm just east of Loveland Saturday, but the office will not release the cause of death or the identity of the person until they can track down next of kin.